Constitution

Quebec secularism law is ‘anti-religious ideology,’ bishops tell Canada Supreme Court #Catholic Canada’s bishops told the Supreme Court of Canada that Quebec’s secularism legislation Bill 21 “denies the divine” going well beyond provincial jurisdiction by imposing an anti-religious ideology on the province.The bishops were among more than 50 intervenors presenting arguments at a landmark Supreme Court of Canada hearing into the constitutionality of Quebec’s 2019 secularism law. The hearing, one of the longest in the court’s history, ran from March 23–26. The court reserved its decision, with a ruling expected later this year.The secularism law, which lower courts have twice upheld, prohibits certain public employees — such as teachers and police officers — from wearing religious symbols while at work.Toronto lawyer Phil Horgan, president and general counsel of the Catholic Civil Rights League (CCRL), argued on behalf of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB), summarizing a factum that argued the “purpose and effect” of Quebec’s legislation is to “amend Canada’s federal constitution by imposing an anti-religious, non-neutral ideology, which goes beyond Québec’s jurisdiction.”Such a “drastic” change can only be made by the federal government using its authority over criminal law or its constitutional “peace, order, and good government” powers, according to the bishops’ argument.Quebec preemptively invoked the notwithstanding clause of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms when it drafted Bill 21 to shield it from judicial review.Federal and provincial governments can invoke the notwithstanding clause of the Constitution to temporarily prevent courts from invalidating legislation as unconstitutional.The timing and impact of the use of Charter Section 33 became a significant issue during the four days of hearings and will likely be central in the court’s analysis, Horgan told The Catholic Register.The appellants challenging Bill 21 include individual teachers directly affected by it as well as advocacy groups including the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM), the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA), and the Legal Committee of the Coalition Inclusion Québec. They argue Bill 21 is “ultra vires,” beyond the powers of provincial jurisdiction.In a five-minute oral argument, Horgan told the seven justices that “Canada’s existing federal constitution is pluralist and pro-religion.” Although “the doctrine of state neutrality is well established, Canada has never adopted laicity or an absolutist separation of church and state,” he said.Justice Malcolm Rowe questioned Horgan on the point, asking: “Other than the reference to the supremacy of God in the preamble to the Charter, would you direct me to the provision in the Constitution which is pro-religion?”Horgan cited Section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which protects denominational school rights and privileges, and noted federal charity law recognizes religion as a public good.Horgan said he wasn’t concerned by the pushback, noting judges often ask questions “not so much to get the answers from counsel but to help … persuade other members of the bench on some of the merits of the argument.”In its factum, the CCCB said Bill 21 “turns the expression of religious belief, through the wearing of symbols, into something to be punished because such expression now conflicts with the dominant philosophical posture of laïcité.”Just as religious symbols are an illustration of underlying personal faith, “the prohibition of religious symbols manifests an outlook from the provincial government that denies the divine,” the bishops said.Quebec has argued the notwithstanding clause disqualifies courts from weighing in on matters deemed political debates. Isabelle Brunet, a lawyer for the Quebec government, told the justices: “It is not up to a court to answer a question that doesn’t concern the courts.”Quebec received support from the attorneys general of Alberta, Ontario, and Saskatchewan, who maintain the courts should not interfere once the notwithstanding clause is invoked.Alberta and Ontario take a contrary position, arguing there is nothing in the notwithstanding clause that precludes judicial scrutiny of legislation.Guy J. Pratte, a lawyer for the attorney general of Canada, said Section 33 gives legislatures the power to override Charter rights but does not nullify the rights altogether or prevent judges from issuing an opinion if freedoms are violated.‘Imposing an anti-religious, non-neutral ideology’The following excerpts are from the factum submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada by the Canadian bishops:“The purpose and effect of the act is unilaterally to amend Canada’s federal constitution by imposing an anti-religious, non-neutral ideology, which goes beyond Québec’s jurisdiction.”“When a province makes itself laïc, it is adopting a non-neutral stance on religion. The provinces do not have that power.”“Québec is attempting to impose an atheistic posture on religious believers.”“Our constitution is founded on a political theory that sees fundamental rights and freedoms as God-given. To adopt an expressly anti-religious viewpoint, as the act purports to do, is an amendment of our existing federal constitution.”“In the place of a genuinely neutral, pluralist, and pro-religious approach, the act substitutes an anti-religious constitutional settlement where symbols of religion worn by individuals are not permitted.”“Just as religious symbols manifest an underlying personal faith, the prohibition of religious symbols manifests an outlook … that denies the divine.”This story was first published by The B.C. Catholic and is reprinted here with permission.
Read More

Quebec secularism law is ‘anti-religious ideology,’ bishops tell Canada Supreme Court #Catholic Canada’s bishops told the Supreme Court of Canada that Quebec’s secularism legislation Bill 21 “denies the divine” going well beyond provincial jurisdiction by imposing an anti-religious ideology on the province.The bishops were among more than 50 intervenors presenting arguments at a landmark Supreme Court of Canada hearing into the constitutionality of Quebec’s 2019 secularism law. The hearing, one of the longest in the court’s history, ran from March 23–26. The court reserved its decision, with a ruling expected later this year.The secularism law, which lower courts have twice upheld, prohibits certain public employees — such as teachers and police officers — from wearing religious symbols while at work.Toronto lawyer Phil Horgan, president and general counsel of the Catholic Civil Rights League (CCRL), argued on behalf of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB), summarizing a factum that argued the “purpose and effect” of Quebec’s legislation is to “amend Canada’s federal constitution by imposing an anti-religious, non-neutral ideology, which goes beyond Québec’s jurisdiction.”Such a “drastic” change can only be made by the federal government using its authority over criminal law or its constitutional “peace, order, and good government” powers, according to the bishops’ argument.Quebec preemptively invoked the notwithstanding clause of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms when it drafted Bill 21 to shield it from judicial review.Federal and provincial governments can invoke the notwithstanding clause of the Constitution to temporarily prevent courts from invalidating legislation as unconstitutional.The timing and impact of the use of Charter Section 33 became a significant issue during the four days of hearings and will likely be central in the court’s analysis, Horgan told The Catholic Register.The appellants challenging Bill 21 include individual teachers directly affected by it as well as advocacy groups including the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM), the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA), and the Legal Committee of the Coalition Inclusion Québec. They argue Bill 21 is “ultra vires,” beyond the powers of provincial jurisdiction.In a five-minute oral argument, Horgan told the seven justices that “Canada’s existing federal constitution is pluralist and pro-religion.” Although “the doctrine of state neutrality is well established, Canada has never adopted laicity or an absolutist separation of church and state,” he said.Justice Malcolm Rowe questioned Horgan on the point, asking: “Other than the reference to the supremacy of God in the preamble to the Charter, would you direct me to the provision in the Constitution which is pro-religion?”Horgan cited Section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which protects denominational school rights and privileges, and noted federal charity law recognizes religion as a public good.Horgan said he wasn’t concerned by the pushback, noting judges often ask questions “not so much to get the answers from counsel but to help … persuade other members of the bench on some of the merits of the argument.”In its factum, the CCCB said Bill 21 “turns the expression of religious belief, through the wearing of symbols, into something to be punished because such expression now conflicts with the dominant philosophical posture of laïcité.”Just as religious symbols are an illustration of underlying personal faith, “the prohibition of religious symbols manifests an outlook from the provincial government that denies the divine,” the bishops said.Quebec has argued the notwithstanding clause disqualifies courts from weighing in on matters deemed political debates. Isabelle Brunet, a lawyer for the Quebec government, told the justices: “It is not up to a court to answer a question that doesn’t concern the courts.”Quebec received support from the attorneys general of Alberta, Ontario, and Saskatchewan, who maintain the courts should not interfere once the notwithstanding clause is invoked.Alberta and Ontario take a contrary position, arguing there is nothing in the notwithstanding clause that precludes judicial scrutiny of legislation.Guy J. Pratte, a lawyer for the attorney general of Canada, said Section 33 gives legislatures the power to override Charter rights but does not nullify the rights altogether or prevent judges from issuing an opinion if freedoms are violated.‘Imposing an anti-religious, non-neutral ideology’The following excerpts are from the factum submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada by the Canadian bishops:“The purpose and effect of the act is unilaterally to amend Canada’s federal constitution by imposing an anti-religious, non-neutral ideology, which goes beyond Québec’s jurisdiction.”“When a province makes itself laïc, it is adopting a non-neutral stance on religion. The provinces do not have that power.”“Québec is attempting to impose an atheistic posture on religious believers.”“Our constitution is founded on a political theory that sees fundamental rights and freedoms as God-given. To adopt an expressly anti-religious viewpoint, as the act purports to do, is an amendment of our existing federal constitution.”“In the place of a genuinely neutral, pluralist, and pro-religious approach, the act substitutes an anti-religious constitutional settlement where symbols of religion worn by individuals are not permitted.”“Just as religious symbols manifest an underlying personal faith, the prohibition of religious symbols manifests an outlook … that denies the divine.”This story was first published by The B.C. Catholic and is reprinted here with permission.

unitedyam

The Catholic bishops were among more than 50 intervenors presenting arguments at a landmark Supreme Court of Canada hearing into the constitutionality of Quebec’s 2019 secularism law.

Read More
Georgia appeals court blocks abuse suit against Atlanta Archdiocese, cites statute of limitations #Catholic A dozen alleged abuse victims suffered a defeat at a Georgia appeals court this week when their lawsuit against the Archdiocese of Atlanta was dismissed on the grounds that the alleged abuse did not fall under an extended statute of limitations. The case turned on whether or not the archdiocese had covered up the alleged clergy sexual abuse, which if true could have “tolled” the time limit for filing abuse claims. “Tolling” occurs when a statute of limitations is extended beyond a normal window, allowing alleged victims to file abuse claims years after they normally would have been barred from doing so. In the Atlanta case, a dozen alleged victims had filed numerous suits against the Archdiocese of Atlanta and numerous churches, claiming that Fathers John Edwards and Jorge Cristancho had abused them over multiple decades from the 1960s to the early 2000s. A lower court had dismissed the cases. The Georgia Court of Appeals on March 9 upheld the dismissal, arguing that the statute of limitations for the filings had expired and that the archdiocese had not committed any malfeasance that could have extended the filing window. The plaintiffs “failed to point to any evidence that the [the archdioceseʼs] actions concealed the Plaintiffs’ claims and prevented or hindered them from filing their lawsuits,” the ruling held. The alleged victims failed to prove that they “ever requested information from the [archdiocese] about their knowledge and involvement in the abuse, or that the [archdiocese] refused” to provide it. The three-judge panel acknowledged that it was “certainly mindful of the grievous circumstances involving heinous conduct which led to the filing of these cases.”Edwards and Cristancho are both listed by the archdiocese as “credibly accused” of sexual abuse. Edwards died in 1997; Cristancho was laicized in 2003. Statutes of limitations have been a key component of disputes in the U.S. Church for years, with lawmakers in recent years advocating and often passing bills retroactively extending the window for filing abuse claims. In 2023 Maryland passed the state Child Victims Act, which abolished a 20-year statute of limitations for civil child abuse suits. The Maryland Supreme Court ruled in 2025 that the law did not violate the state constitution.Numerous states such as New York, North Carolina, New Jersey, Colorado and others have enacted similar laws allowing for abuse victims to seek restitution for alleged incidents that occurred in decades past. Such legal arrangements are not limited to the United States. In January the Spanish Bishops’ Conference and the national government agreed to a compensation plan for abuse victims that will allow victims to file for restitution even if the alleged abuse falls outside of the standard statute of limitations.
Read More

Georgia appeals court blocks abuse suit against Atlanta Archdiocese, cites statute of limitations #Catholic A dozen alleged abuse victims suffered a defeat at a Georgia appeals court this week when their lawsuit against the Archdiocese of Atlanta was dismissed on the grounds that the alleged abuse did not fall under an extended statute of limitations. The case turned on whether or not the archdiocese had covered up the alleged clergy sexual abuse, which if true could have “tolled” the time limit for filing abuse claims. “Tolling” occurs when a statute of limitations is extended beyond a normal window, allowing alleged victims to file abuse claims years after they normally would have been barred from doing so. In the Atlanta case, a dozen alleged victims had filed numerous suits against the Archdiocese of Atlanta and numerous churches, claiming that Fathers John Edwards and Jorge Cristancho had abused them over multiple decades from the 1960s to the early 2000s. A lower court had dismissed the cases. The Georgia Court of Appeals on March 9 upheld the dismissal, arguing that the statute of limitations for the filings had expired and that the archdiocese had not committed any malfeasance that could have extended the filing window. The plaintiffs “failed to point to any evidence that the [the archdioceseʼs] actions concealed the Plaintiffs’ claims and prevented or hindered them from filing their lawsuits,” the ruling held. The alleged victims failed to prove that they “ever requested information from the [archdiocese] about their knowledge and involvement in the abuse, or that the [archdiocese] refused” to provide it. The three-judge panel acknowledged that it was “certainly mindful of the grievous circumstances involving heinous conduct which led to the filing of these cases.”Edwards and Cristancho are both listed by the archdiocese as “credibly accused” of sexual abuse. Edwards died in 1997; Cristancho was laicized in 2003. Statutes of limitations have been a key component of disputes in the U.S. Church for years, with lawmakers in recent years advocating and often passing bills retroactively extending the window for filing abuse claims. In 2023 Maryland passed the state Child Victims Act, which abolished a 20-year statute of limitations for civil child abuse suits. The Maryland Supreme Court ruled in 2025 that the law did not violate the state constitution.Numerous states such as New York, North Carolina, New Jersey, Colorado and others have enacted similar laws allowing for abuse victims to seek restitution for alleged incidents that occurred in decades past. Such legal arrangements are not limited to the United States. In January the Spanish Bishops’ Conference and the national government agreed to a compensation plan for abuse victims that will allow victims to file for restitution even if the alleged abuse falls outside of the standard statute of limitations.

unitedyam

The statute of limitations could not be extended due to a lack of evidence of fraud by the archdiocese, the court said.

Read More
In the Style of Rembrandt – recreate ‘George Washington’ By Gilbert Stuart – #AIPrompt #AIart
Read More

In the Style of Rembrandt – recreate ‘George Washington’ By Gilbert Stuart – #AIPrompt #AIart

unitedyam

After the war, Washington’s dedication to the nascent nation did not wane. He presided over the Constitutional Convention in 1787, where his support was crucial in the drafting and ratification of the U.S. Constitution. In 1789, he was unanimously elected as the first President of the United States, serving two terms and setting many precedents for the office. Washington’s presidency established the foundations of American governance, including the creation of a stable financial system, the establishment of the executive cabinet, and the tradition of a peaceful transfer of power. Retiring to his beloved Mount Vernon in 1797, he remained a symbol of national unity until his death on December 14, 1799. Washington’s legacy as a leader of integrity, courage, and vision continues to inspire generations.

Read More